FEDERAL 

COURTHOUSES

Better Planning 

Needed Regarding 

Reuse of Old 

Courthouses

Report to Congressional Requesters

November 2013

GAO-14-48

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-14-48, a report to 

congressional requesters

November 2013

FEDERAL COURTHOUSES

Better Planning Needed Regarding Reuse of Old 

Courthouses

Why GAO Did This Study

During the last 20 years, GSA built 79

new courthouses for the judiciary that 

replaced or supplemented 66 old 

courthouses. Retaining and re-using or 

disposing old courthouses can be 

challenging for GSA because many of 

them are more than 80 years old, do 

not meet current court security 

standards, and have historic features 

that must be preserved by federal 

agencies in accordance with historic 

preservation requirements. GAO was 

asked to review how GSA and the 

judiciary are planning and managing 

the reuse or disposal of old 

courthouses. GAO examined (1) how 

the government is re-using old 

courthouses that were retained and the 

challenges involved; (2) how GSA 

disposed of old courthouses, the 

process involved, and the results; and 

(3) the extent to which GSA’s 

proposals for new courthouses 

considered the future use of old 

courthouses. As case studies, we 

selected 17 old courthouses to 

represent a mix of retained and 

disposed buildings located in 

geographically diverse areas.

What GAO Recommends

In proposing new courthouses, GSA, in 

consultation with the judiciary, should 

include plans for re-using or disposing 

of old courthouses, any required 

renovations and the estimated costs, 

and any other challenges to re-using or 

disposing of the buildings. GSA 

concurred with the recommendation 

and AOUSC agreed that GSA and the 

judiciary should work together to 

address the judiciary’s housing needs.

What GAO Found

Of the 66 old federal courthouses that GAO reviewed, the General Services 

Administration (GSA) retained 40, disposed of 25, and is in the process of disposing 

of another. Of the retained old courthouses, the judiciary occupies 30 of them, 25 as 

the main tenant, most commonly with the district and bankruptcy courts. When 

determining whether to retain and reuse or to dispose of old courthouses, GSA 

considers, among other things, a building’s condition, the local real estate market,

and the existing and projected base of federal tenants. GSA officials said that after 

the judiciary moves to new courthouses, old courthouses often require renovations to 

be reused. Moreover, GSA officials said that it can be challenging to find new tenants 

for old courthouses due to the buildings’ condition and needed renovations, among 

other reasons. Among the retained old courthouses GAO reviewed, excluding one 

building that was under major renovation, about 14 percent of the total space (nearly 

1-million square feet) in them was vacant as of May 2013—significantly higher than 

the 4.8 percent overall vacant space in federally-owned buildings in 2012.

Old U.S. Courthouse in Tallahassee, Florida, Being Used by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court

.

GAO found that GSA took about 1.4 years to dispose of old courthouses that the 

agency determined were no longer needed. GSA officials told us that multiple parties’ 

interest in re-using the old courthouses, the historic status of many buildings, and 

their specialized designs can slow the disposal process. 

GSA is not specifically required by statute to include plans for old courthouses in its 

proposals to Congress for new courthouses. However, as with other building

proposals over a certain dollar threshold, GSA is required to include, among other 

things, a “comprehensive plan” to provide space for all federal employees in the area, 

considering suitable space that may be available in nearby existing government 

buildings. In addition, GAO and the Office of Management and Budget have 

previously reported that complete cost estimates are a best practice in capital 

planning. GAO found that renovations needed to reuse the old courthouses, totaling 

over $760 million to date, were often not included in GSA’s new courthouse 

proposals. Specifically, for 33 of the 40 retained old courthouses, the new courthouse 

proposals described plans for reuse by federal tenants, but only 15 proposals 

specified whether renovations were needed to realize these plans, and only 11 

included estimates of the renovation costs. GAO found that some old courthouses 

were partially or wholly vacant while awaiting renovation funding, sometimes 

resulting in money spent leasing space in commercial buildings for the judiciary. 

View GAO-14-48. For more information, 

contact Mark L.Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 or 

goldsteinm@gao.gov
Page i GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

Letter 1

Background 3

Many Old Courthouses Were Retained, but Challenges Sometimes 

Exist with Building Costs, Replacing Tenants, and Space 

Utilization 8

GSA Disposed of Many Old Courthouses That Are Being Re-used 

for a Variety of Purposes, but the Process Can Be Lengthy 17

New Courthouse Proposals Did Not Consistently Address the Need 

for Old Courthouse Renovations 25

Conclusions 30

Recommendation 31

Agency Comments 31

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 33

Appendix II Status of Old U.S. Courthouses since 1993 36

Appendix III Additional Examples of Old Courthouses Converted to Other Uses

41

Appendix IV Comments from the General Services Administration 44

Appendix V Comments from the Federal Judiciary 46

Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 48

Related GAO Products 49

Contents
Page ii GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

Figures

Figure 1: GSA’s Typical Process for Disposing of Old Courthouses 

and Other Federal Real Property 7

Figure 2: Status of Old U.S. Courthouses That Were Replaced or 

Supplemented by New Courthouses, 1993-2012 9

Figure 3: Trenton, New Jersey, Old Courthouse Space Used as a 

Courtroom Until the Completion of the New Courthouse 

in 1994 and Released to GSA in 2012 (left) and Courtroom 

Leased by Judiciary in the Same Building but Not 

Currently Used to Conduct Trials (right) 15

Figure 4: Old Courthouse Disposals and Disposal Methods 

(Including Pending Disposals) 17

Figure 5: Old Courthouse in Kansas City, Missouri, Converted into 

Affordable Housing 24

Figure 6: Old Courthouse in Ft. Myers, Florida, Converted into an 

Art Center 25

Figure 7: Vacant Space in the Portland, Oregon, Old Courthouse, 

2013 28

Figure 8: The Center Courtroom Entrance and Interior in the Dyer 

U.S. Courthouse, Miami, Florida 30

Figure 9: Former Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, Hammond, 

Indiana, Converted for Church Use 41

Figure 10: Former Federal Building-Courthouse, Greeneville, 

Tennessee, Converted into a Bank 42

Figure 11: Former U.S. Classic Courthouse, Tampa, Florida, to 

Become Hotel 43

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

November 7, 2013

The Honorable Bill Shuster

Chairman

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

The Honorable Lou Barletta

Chairman

The Honorable André Carson

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and 

Emergency Management

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

The Honorable Jeff Denham

The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton

House of Representatives

The multibillion-dollar courthouse construction program that the General 

Services Administration (GSA) and the federal judiciary (judiciary) have 

undertaken since the early 1990s left GSA with responsibility for 66 old 

courthouses in cities where new ones were built. Because these buildings 

are usually located in city centers, there is often a high level of interest by 

the public, local governments, and Congress regarding their future use. 

However, re-using or disposing of old courthouses can be difficult 

because many were built in the 1930s or earlier, do not meet current

court security standards, and those that have been designated as historic 

are subject to historic preservation requirements. Since 2003, we have 

identified real property management as a high-risk area for the federal 

government, as agencies continue to face longstanding problems with 

excess and unutilized or underutilized property.1 In 2006, we found that 

the judiciary’s annual rental obligations to GSA for courthouses had 

increased from $780 million to $900 million from fiscal years 2000 through 

2005, after controlling for inflation, primarily due to a 19 percent increase 

 1

GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-13-283 (Washington, D.C.: February 2013).
Page 2 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

in space.2 We also reported in 2010 that federal courthouses were often 

constructed larger than necessary because of poor planning, oversight, 

and inefficient courtroom use, resulting in $835 million spent constructing 

extra space and $51 million in additional annual costs for rent, operations, 

and maintenance.3 The administration has made it a priority for executive 

branch agencies to dispose of unneeded properties and make more 

efficient use of the government’s real estate assets.4

In response to these concerns, you asked us to review how GSA and the 

judiciary are planning and managing the reuse or disposal of old 

courthouses. We examined (1) how the government is re-using old 

courthouses that were retained and the challenges involved; (2) how GSA 

disposed of old courthouses, the process involved, and the results; and 

(3) the extent to which GSA’s proposals for new courthouses considered 

the future use of the old courthouses.

To determine how the government is re-using old courthouses and the 

challenges involved and how GSA disposed of old courthouses, the 

process involved, and the results, we collected and analyzed GSA data 

on 66 old federal courthouses—i.e., ones that were replaced or 

supplemented by new courthouses in the last 20 years, including vacancy 

rates and financial performance. We also interviewed GSA officials about 

the factors used to determine whether to retain and reuse old 

courthouses or dispose of them, as well as the challenges involved, and 

interviewed judges and judicial officials about the judiciary’s use of old 

courthouses or the disposal of those buildings. As case studies, we 

focused on 17 old courthouses, including 13 that we visited (Boston, MA; 

Camden, NJ; Eugene, OR; Ft. Myers; FL; Orlando, FL; Portland, OR; 

 2

GAO, Federal Courthouses: Rent Increases Due to New Space and Growing Energy and 

Security Costs Require Better Tracking and Management, GAO-06-613 (Washington, 

D.C.: June 20, 2006). 

3

GAO, Federal Courthouse Construction: Better Planning, Oversight, and Courtroom 

Sharing Needed to Address Future Costs, GAO 10-417 (Washington, D.C.: June 21, 

2010).

4

On March 14, 2013, as part of the Administration’s “Freeze the Footprint” initiative, the 

Office of Management and Budget directed executive branch agencies not to increase the 

total amount of office and warehouse space that they use, to work collaboratively with 

other agencies and for GSA to find opportunities for smarter space usage through colocations and consolidations, and eliminate lease arrangements that are not space or cost 

effective.
Page 3 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

Reno, NV; Richmond, VA; Sacramento, CA; Springfield, MA; 

Tallahassee, FL; Tampa, FL; and Trenton, NJ) and 4 where we 

interviewed GSA officials by phone (Coeur d’Alene, ID; Greeneville, TN; 

Hammond, IN; and Kansas City, MO). We selected the 17 old 

courthouses to represent a mix of retained and disposed buildings located 

in geographically diverse areas. We reviewed the GSA’s data for 

completeness and determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for 

the purposes of this report. To determine the extent to which proposals 

for new courthouses considered the future use of the old courthouses, we 

reviewed pertinent, laws, regulations, and policies, and GSA’s proposals 

submitted to Congress for new courthouses and appropriations made for 

renovating the old courthouses. Appendix I provides more details about 

our scope and methodology. A list of our related products on federal 

courthouses, real property disposal, and historic building preservation 

appears at the end of the report.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2012 through 

September 2013 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We 

believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Since 1993, GSA has built 79 new courthouses that replaced or 

supplemented 66 old courthouses.5 GSA considers 15 of the new 

courthouses to be annexes—additions that are often larger than the old 

courthouses.6 The judiciary identifies potential courthouse projects based 

on a capital-planning process that involves consultation with GSA. GSA is 

responsible for reviewing these projects and completing a feasibility study 

to further analyze and determine the best option, which may differ from 

the judiciary’s preferred option, before forwarding projects it approves to 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). If approved by OMB, GSA 

is responsible for submitting requests to congressional authorizing 

 5

Twelve new courthouses were built in locations where GSA leased space for the 

judiciary, and one new courthouse was built where GSA did not lease space for the 

judiciary and where an old courthouse did not exist.

6

The annexes are indicated in appendix II.

Background
Page 4 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

committees in the form of detailed descriptions or prospectuses, hereafter 

referred to as “new courthouse proposals.”7 Following congressional 

authorization and the appropriation of funds for the projects, GSA 

manages the site, design, and construction phases. After the tenants 

occupy the space, GSA charges federal tenants, such as the judiciary, 

rent for the space they occupy and for their respective share of common 

areas. In fiscal year 2012, the judiciary’s rent payments to GSA totaled 

over $1 billion for approximately 42.4 million square feet of space in 779 

buildings that include 446 federal courthouses. When new courthouses 

are built, GSA sometimes retains the buildings for occupancy by the 

judiciary or other federal tenants or GSA, which has custody and control 

of the federally-owned buildings, disposes of them as surplus real

property. GSA works with the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

(AOUSC), the judiciary’s administrative office, in addressing courthouse 

space needs and issues.

The rent that federal tenants pay GSA is deposited into the Federal 

Buildings Fund, a revolving fund that GSA uses to finance the operating 

and capital costs associated with federal space such as repairs and 

alterations, new construction, and operations and maintenance.8 When 

the costs of a project’s capital improvements exceed a specific threshold, 

currently set at $2.79 million, GSA must submit a prospectus to certain 

congressional committees for approval prior to the appropriation of funds 

to meet repair or new construction needs.

 7

Before Congress makes an appropriation for a proposed project, GSA is to submit 

detailed project descriptions to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

and the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for authorization by these 

committees when the proposed construction, alteration, or acquisition of a building to be 

used as a public building exceeds a specified dollar threshold. See 40 U.S.C. § 3307. 

Funding for new courthouses we reviewed was also requested through project 

descriptions known as Fact Sheets and Reports of Building Survey. For the purposes of 

our report, these documents are also referred to as new courthouse proposals. 

8

For more information about the Federal Buildings Fund, see GAO, Federal Buildings 

Fund: Improved Transparency and Long-term Plan Needed to Clarify Capital Funding 

Priorities, GAO-12-646 (Washington, D.C.: July 12, 2012). A revolving fund is a fund 

established by Congress to finance a cycle of business like operations through amounts 

received by the fund. GAO, A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process, 

GAO-05-734SP (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 2005) 88. In annual appropriations acts, 

Congress sets limits on how much can be obligated for various activities from the Federal 

Buildings Fund.
Page 5 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

The judiciary leases more space in federally-owned buildings than any 

executive or legislative branch agency. Judiciary components housed in 

courthouses may include a U.S. court of appeals (court of appeals 

judges, senior circuit judges, and staff); U.S. district court (district judges, 

magistrate judges, and clerk’s office staff); U.S. bankruptcy court (judges 

and clerk’s office staff); probation and pretrial services staff; or the office 

of the federal public defender. In addition to these judicial components, 

certain executive branch agencies integrally involved with U.S. court 

activities often lease space in federal courthouses, including the 

Department of Justice’s U.S. Marshals Service, U.S. Attorney’s Office, 

and the Office of the U.S. Trustee. In some cases, GSA also leases 

space for the judiciary in private office buildings. The district courts are 

the trial courts of the federal court system and occupy the most judiciary 

space. There are 94 federal judicial districts—at least one for each state, 

the District of Columbia, and four U.S. territories—organized into 12 

regional circuits. Each circuit has a court of appeals whose jurisdiction 

includes appeals from the district and bankruptcy courts located within the 

circuit, as well as appeals from decisions of federal administrative 

agencies.9

When a new courthouse is built, GSA—rather than the judiciary—decides 

whether to retain the old courthouse and, when the building is retained, 

determines how it should be reused. In determining whether to retain an 

old courthouse, GSA considers the building’s condition; its historic or 

architectural significance; the judiciary’s interest in occupying the building; 

local market conditions, such as prevailing lease rates for commercial 

space; and the existing and projected base of other prospective federal 

tenants within the area. According to GSA, if the agency determines that 

the government no longer needs the building, the agency generally uses 

the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949,10 as 

amended, (Property Act) to dispose of it, following the process shown in 

figure 1. In addition, GSA has other authorities to dispose of old 

 9

There are also two trial courts (the U S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court 

of Federal Claims) and one court of appeals (the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit) with nationwide jurisdiction over certain types of cases.

10Pub. L. No. 81-152, 63 Stat. 377 (1949). 
Page 6 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

courthouses, such as the Public Buildings Act of 1959, as amended,11

which follow a different process.12 As shown in figure 1, GSA may dispose 

of federal real property through public benefit conveyances (PBC)13 to 

state or local governments and certain nonprofits for approved public 

benefit uses or negotiated sale to state and local government entities, but 

not before screening the property for use by other federal agencies and 

homeless service providers if the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) has determined the property suitable for homeless 

assistance. If no interest is received from eligible public or nonprofit 

entities, the agency concludes that there is no public benefit use for the 

property and proceeds with plans to market it for competitive public sale.

 11Pub. L. No. 86-249, 73 Stat. 479. See also, section 412 of Division H of GSA General 

Provisions, Consolidated Appropriations Acts of 2005, Pub. L. No. 108-447, 118 Stat. 

2809, 3259. In general, under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, the Administrator of 

GSA, notwithstanding any other provision of law, is authorized to convey real property by 

sale, lease, exchange, or otherwise, including through leaseback arrangements, real and 

related personal property, or interests therein, and retain the net proceeds of such 

disposition in an account within the Federal Buildings Fund.

12When using these other authorities, for example, in property exchanges involving old 

courthouses, GSA does not declare the buildings to be excess and does not follow the 

screening process shown in figure 1.

13A PBC allows the federal government to lease or transfer title of surplus property to 

qualified entities for specific public uses at a substantial discount (up to 100 percent of fair 

market value in some cases). The concept of a PBC is to support property uses that 

benefit the community as a whole. A “Historic Monument” PBC requires that the properties 

must be maintained for historical monument purposes, which allow rehabilitation for new 

uses, including revenue-producing activities.
Page 7 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

Figure 1: GSA’s Typical Process for Disposing of Old Courthouses and Other 

Federal Real Property

Note: Under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, the Secretary of Housing and Urban 

Development is to solicit information from federal landholding agencies regarding federal buildings 

that are excess property, surplus property, or that are described as unutilized or underutilized in 

surveys by the heads of landholding agencies.
Page 8 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

Forty of the 66 old courthouses replaced or supplemented by new 

courthouses since 1993 were retained for reuse by the government. GSA 

disposed of most of the remaining old courthouses through PBCs or sales 

to state and local governments, eligible nonprofits, or private sector 

entities. As figure 2 illustrates, of the 40 retained old courthouses, 36 

were being reused by the judiciary and other federal tenants; 3 were 

vacant; and 1 was largely closed for a major renovation. Appendix II 

contains detailed information about the 66 courthouses, including their 

status, disposal method, proceeds, and current uses or major tenants.

Many Old 

Courthouses Were 

Retained, but 

Challenges 

Sometimes Exist with 

Building Costs, 

Replacing Tenants, 

and Space Utilization

Federal Government Still 

Owns Nearly Two-Thirds 

of the Old Courthouses
Page 9 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

Figure 2: Status of Old U.S. Courthouses That Were Replaced or Supplemented by 

New Courthouses, 1993-2012

Note: Data as of August 2013. Under major renovation refers to a building that is being renovated and 

is more than 50 percent vacant. One disposal action took place in 2013.

Among the retained and reused old courthouses, the judiciary had the 

largest share of space in 25, some space in 5, and occupied no space in 

the other 6. The various judiciary tenants are sometimes co-located within 

the same old courthouse. As of June 2013, of the retained old 

courthouses, the U.S. district courts occupied space in 15 and the U.S. 

bankruptcy courts occupied space in 19. The U.S. courts of appeals were 

using five old courthouses to hear cases.14 In addition, the judiciary and 

 14The U.S. courts of appeals also occupies space in other old courthouses, such as the 

old courthouse in Trenton, New Jersey, which houses chambers and library space, though 

no courtrooms are dedicated to courts of appeals use. Appellate judges who do not 

maintain their duty station in a federal courthouse containing a court of appeals courtroom 

travel from their resident chamber to the circuit headquarters to hear cases and conduct 

other court business. 
Page 10 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

other federal agencies are sometimes co-located in the same old 

courthouse. Executive branch agencies, particularly the U.S. Department 

of Justice, had the largest share of space in 11 of the retained and reused 

old courthouses.

Among the retained old courthouses we reviewed, excluding one building 

that was under major renovation,15 about 14 percent of the total space 

(nearly 1-million square feet) in them was vacant as of May 2013—

significantly higher than the 4.8 percent overall vacant space among 

federally-owned buildings in 2012. Eleven of these old courthouses were 

more than 25 percent vacant, including three (Miami, FL; Buffalo, NY; and 

Austin, TX) that were completely vacant. GSA officials told us that 

replacing tenants in old courthouses can be challenging due to the 

buildings’ condition and needed renovations, among other reasons, as 

will be discussed later in this report. For example, the old courthouse in 

Miami has been vacant since 2008 because, according to GSA, of the 

high costs to renovate it for reuse. The agency plans to either dispose of 

the building or lease it to nonfederal tenants. The old courthouse in 

Buffalo has been vacant since 2011 because, according to GSA, it 

requires renovations that were not requested in the new courthouse 

proposal, as will be discussed in further detail later in this report. 

According to GSA officials, the old courthouse in Austin was vacated in 

December 2012 and GSA is working with the judiciary on a possible plan 

to reuse the building for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Forty-one percent of the old courthouses were classified by GSA in 2013 

as “nonperforming”—i.e., buildings that do not cover their operating 

 15GSA’s national average excludes space undergoing prospectus-level renovation. GSA is 

required by 40 U.S.C. § 3307 to submit a funding prospectus to Congress if the renovation 

is estimated to cost more than a threshold amount currently set at $2.79 million. We 

excluded the old courthouse in Denver because it was undergoing prospectus-level 

renovations at the time of our review and the old courthouse in Laredo because it was in 

the disposal process. 

Old Courthouses Have 

More Vacant Space and 

Many Do Not Cover Their 

Costs
Page 11 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

expenses and require moderate to significant renovation.16 In 2012, 30 

percent of all federally-owned buildings were classified by the agency as 

“nonperforming.”17 Among other factors, GSA considers net operating 

income in classifying buildings as “nonperforming.” Buildings with netoperating-income losses drain the Federal Buildings Fund, which is 

GSA’s main source of funding used to maintain, operate, and improve 

federally-owned buildings. Therefore, old courthouses with net-operatingincome losses subtract financial resources that could have been used for 

other buildings and projects. According to GSA, the financial performance 

of old courthouses may be affected by vacancy rates, low local 

commercial-market rental rates on which GSA bases its rates for federal 

tenants, as well as operational and administrative expenses associated 

with the buildings. Of the 41 federally-owned old courthouses, 31 (76 

percent) had positive net operating income, totaling about $119 million in 

fiscal year 2012. The remaining 10 old courthouses had net-operatingincome losses totaling about $13 million, most of which was the result of 

an approximately $9-million loss at the old courthouse in New York City 

(the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse) that was wholly vacant for 

major renovations, followed by the vacant old courthouses in Miami and 

Buffalo, which had net-operating-income losses of about $1 million and 

$695,000, respectively.18 According to GSA officials, the agency focuses 

on “nonperforming” buildings by developing strategies to address their 

problems, such as high rates of vacancy.

 16GSA annually categorizes federally-owned buildings, including buildings in the disposal 

process, as “performing,” “underperforming,” or “nonperforming” based upon a series of 

diagnostics that evaluate the financial performance and physical condition of individual 

assets. Because GSA considers other factors besides net operating income in 

categorizing buildings, “nonperforming” buildings may generate positive net operating 

income and “performing” buildings may generate net-operating-income losses. For 

example, in fiscal year 2012, eight of the old courthouses that GSA categorized as 

“nonperforming” had positive net operating income and one old courthouse that GSA 

categorized as “performing” had a net-operating-income loss.

17This was the most recent data on the share of all nonperforming buildings available at 

the time of our review.

18We previously reported on the old courthouse in Miami. See GAO, Federal Courthouses 

Construction: Nationwide Space and Cost Overages Also Apply to Miami Project, 

GAO-13-461T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 8, 2013).
Page 12 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

Many old courthouses cannot be easily reconfigured to meet current 

federal space needs, and thus replacing previous tenants can prove 

difficult. For example, current U.S. courthouse security standards require 

the construction of three separate circulation patterns for judges, 

prisoners, and the public, which many old courthouses do not have. In 

addition, because of their age, old courthouses often need costly 

renovations, new mechanical systems, and other improvements before 

they are suitable for reuse.19 Further, because many of old courthouses 

have official historic status—that is, they are listed on the National 

Register of Historic Places or are eligible for listing20—renovations by 

federal agencies to reuse these buildings for modern office space, for 

example, must follow the requirements of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, including, among others, 

compliance with Department of the Interior’s historic preservation 

standards. 

Although an Executive Order and GSA regulations encourage executive 

branch agencies to seek federally-controlled space, especially in centrally 

 19For the purposes of this report, renovations include repairs and alterations.

20The National Register of Historic Places (National Register) is the official list of the 

nation’s historic places, authorized by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as 

amended. The Department of the Interior’s National Park Service administers the National 

Register and issues standards and guidelines for federal agency historic-preservation 

programs. A building is generally not eligible for National Register listing until it is at least 

50 years old unless its historic significance is considered exceptional. For more 

information on the management of historic buildings and associated challenges, see GAO, 

Federal Real Property: Improved Data Needed to Strategically Manage Historic Buildings, 

Address Multiple Challenges, GAO-13-35 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2012).

Replacing Tenants in Old 

Courthouses Can Be 

Difficult
Page 13 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

located historic buildings,

21 we found several cases in which GSA faced 

challenges replacing tenants in old courthouses. For example, according 

to GSA officials, it took more than 10 years to fill the old courthouse in 

Sacramento, California, after the judiciary moved to a new courthouse in 

1999. The officials said that although the old courthouse is centrally 

located adjacent to California state office buildings in the downtown area, 

the building needed renovations before it could be reused by other federal 

tenants, and that limited parking made it difficult to attract new tenants. In 

Portland, Oregon, GSA officials told us that the 66-year-old courthouse 

was not extensively renovated after the judiciary moved to the new 

courthouse in 1998 and, as a result, some space remains vacant, 

including three former district courtrooms. Other old courthouses have 

experienced greater difficulty in attracting new tenants after the judiciary 

moved out. The old courthouse in Reno, Nevada, for example, remained 

nearly half vacant for almost 20 years after the U.S. district court moved 

to the new courthouse in 1996 and the bankruptcy court remained. GSA 

officials also said that it takes time––sometimes years––for federal 

agencies’ leases in commercial buildings to expire before they could relocate to federally-owned space. Moreover, in some cases, we found that 

GSA has been unable to find enough tenants to justify retaining buildings. 

 21Executive Order 12072, for example, requires the GSA Administrator to develop 

programs to, among other things, “make maximum use of existing Federally controlled 

facilities which, in his judgment, are adequate or economically adaptable to meeting the 

space needs of Executive agencies.” In addition, GSA federal management regulations 

set out the real estate acquisition policy that “[w]hen seeking to acquire space, Federal 

agencies should first seek space in Government-owned and Government-leased 

buildings. If suitable Government-controlled space is unavailable, Federal agencies must 

acquire real estate and related services in an efficient and cost effective manner.” Federal 

management regulations further specify a general hierarchy of consideration that agencies 

must follow in their utilization of space. Under this hierarchy, federal agencies must, in 

general, (1) first utilize space in government-owned and government-leased buildings, (2) 

if there is no suitable space in government-owned and government-leased buildings, 

utilize space in buildings under the custody and control of the U.S. Postal Service, and (3) 

if there is no suitable space in buildings under the custody and control of the U.S. Postal 

Service, agencies may, among other things, acquire space in buildings not owned or 

leased by the federal government or the U.S. Postal Service. The National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966 calls upon federal agencies to use available historic buildings. 

Executive Order 13006 further calls on federal agencies to follow a locational order of 

hierarchy giving first consideration to historic buildings within center city historic districts if 

such action is operationally appropriate and economically prudent, among other things. 

According to GSA, a majority of historic federal courthouses meet these locational goals. 

In addition, according to GSA, the agency seeks to enhance the financial performance of 

monumental historic federal buildings by, among other things, encouraging agencies to 

occupy space in these buildings and by seeking nonfederal tenants to occupy vacant 

space in them.
Page 14 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

For example, in Springfield, Massachusetts, although GSA initially 

planned to retain the old courthouse, the agency decided to dispose of it 

after the federal tenants that were expected to occupy the building 

changed their plans, which GSA determined would have resulted in a 

long-term vacancy rate of at least 40 percent.

Even when federal tenants, such as the judiciary, rent space in old 

courthouses, the space may sometimes be un-used or underutilized. In 

Trenton, New Jersey, for example, we found that the judiciary paid rent to 

GSA for space that, according to the judiciary, was used as a district 

courtroom until the construction of the new courthouse in 1994. However, 

the judiciary only released this space to GSA in 2012.22 In addition, the 

judiciary was also paying rent for 3 other courtrooms in the same building 

but using them as office and meeting space instead of using them to 

conduct trials (fig. 3). According to the judiciary, these rooms were not 

used as courtrooms because, among other reasons, they did not meet 

modern security standards. We have previously raised concerns about 

the amount of space that the judiciary occupies.23 The judiciary plans to 

return 2 of the 3 courtrooms to GSA in October 2013.

 22GSA officials told us that the agency is planning to lease the space to the U.S. Marshals 

Service. 

23GAO-10-417.

Some Judiciary Space in 

Old Courthouses Remains 

Unused or Underutilized 
Page 15 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

Figure 3: Trenton, New Jersey, Old Courthouse Space Used as a Courtroom until the Completion of the New Courthouse in 

1994 and Released to GSA in 2012 (left), and Courtroom Leased by Judiciary in the Same Building but Not Currently Used to 

Conduct Trials (right)

Similarly, in Camden, New Jersey, we found that the judiciary paid rent to 

GSA since 1994 for courtroom space that has not been built, 

underscoring the importance of effective space planning in new and old 

courthouses to reduce the government’s real property costs. The judiciary 

plans to return that space to GSA in October 2013.

We also found the judiciary’s space planning in old courthouses may 

need to further consider changes in technology and trends in court 

operations. For example, in Camden, a U.S. bankruptcy court official told 

us that the need for file space had been reduced with growth in electronic 

filing. In Richmond, Virginia, judiciary officials told us that the use of law 

libraries has decreased with the growing popularity of online legal 

research. In addition, we found that the old courthouse in Richmond was 

mostly retained for use by the U.S. courts of appeals even though it is 

unclear whether the caseload at this location justified that amount of 

space. Specifically, an appellate judge in Richmond told us that the court 

has reduced how often it uses the courthouse for oral arguments (4-day 
Page 16 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

periods known as “court weeks”) from eight times per year to six times 

per year due to improvements in efficiency. We found the appeals court in 

Richmond generally uses its six courtrooms simultaneously about 16 

percent of the time. We have previously noted that older courthouses are 

suitable for use by the U.S. courts of appeals, given their comparatively 

lower security needs.24 Judiciary officials added that reuse of old 

courthouses with historic features, such as in Richmond, is an ideal 

arrangement given limited opportunities for other reuses. However, we 

have previously raised concerns about the lack of space allocation criteria 

for the U.S. courts of appeals25 and will review space utilization by the 

appeals court in a future study.

The difference between the U.S. Courts Design Guide (Design Guide) 

baseline for libraries in new courthouses, about 9,200 square feet, and 

the existing library space in Richmond, about 17,000 square feet, raises 

questions about whether the entire space is needed. The Design Guide26

does not specify how much space should be allotted for judiciary 

functions, such as clerk space, libraries, and courtrooms, in existing 

buildings.27 According to judiciary officials, space configurations in 

existing buildings make them difficult to retrofit consistent with current 

design standards. As a result, the judiciary does not apply its space 

planning tool, which uses Design Guide specifications, for space planning 

in old courthouses. However, AOUSC officials told us that the judiciary’s 

annual $1-billion rent costs are unsustainable and that they are 

developing a program, called Right Fit, to examine opportunities to 

reduce the amount of space leased from GSA.

 24GAO, Federal Courthouses: Rent Increases Due to New Space and Growing Energy 

and Security Costs Require Better Tracking and Management, GAO-06-613 (Washington, 

D.C.: June 20, 2006).

25GAO-06-613.

26Judicial Conference of the United States, U.S. Courts Design Guide 2007 (Washington, 

D.C.: 2007). The U.S. Courts Design Guide specifies the judiciary’s criteria for designing 

new court facilities and sets the space and design standards for court-related elements of 

courthouse construction.

27The Repair and Alteration Appendix to the U.S. Courts Design Guide is intended to be 

used in conjunction with the Design Guide and the GSA Facilities Standards for the Public 

Buildings Service, which establishes standards and criteria for, among other things, work 

in historic structures.
Page 17 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

GSA disposed of 25 of the 66 old courthouses we reviewed by PBCs, 

sales, or exchanges. As shown in figure 4, GSA disposed of most 

courthouses through sales or exchanges (65 percent) followed by PBCs 

(31 percent). 

Figure 4: Old Courthouse Disposals and Disposal Methods (Including Pending 

Disposals)

Note: Data as of August 2013.

a

Includes three exchanges of old courthouse buildings for land.

GSA Disposed of 

Many Old 

Courthouses That Are 

Being Reused for a 

Variety of Purposes, 

but the Process Can 

Be Lengthy

GSA Disposed of More 

Than One Third of the Old 

Courthouses
Page 18 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

Of the 17 old courthouses that GSA sold or exchanged, 14 were sold and 

3 were exchanged for land used for the new courthouse.28 From buildings 

GSA sold, it realized a total of about $20 million in proceeds.29 Sales 

prices for these buildings ranged from $200,000 for the old courthouse in 

Greeneville, Tennessee, to $5.4 million for the old courthouse in 

Minneapolis, Minnesota, with an average sale price of $1.5 million. 

Purchasers of the 14 old courthouses disposed by sale included state and 

local governments as well as private sector entities. Most old courthouses 

disposed by PBC were disposed using historic monument conveyances, 

which, according to GSA, provide the greatest flexibility with regard to the 

future use of the building. Specifically, as long as the buildings’ historic 

features are preserved in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for Rehabilitation, the recipients may develop plans for a wide 

variety of uses. For example, old courthouses that were disposed of by 

historic monument conveyance included buildings that are being reused 

or plan to be used as affordable housing, a hotel, and for state and local 

government functions. Other old courthouses that were disposed of by 

PBCs were being used for educational and for criminal justice purposes 

such as juvenile justice centers.30 Although PBCs do not typically 

generate any financial proceeds for the federal government, the public 

continues to realize a benefit from the buildings because they are 

conveyed with deed restrictions that ensure the building will be used for 

the approved public benefit purpose.31 According to GSA, cost savings 

and cost avoidance is often realized with the disposal of unused or 

underutilized property, including properties disposed of via PBC.

 28GSA can negotiate a sale at appraised fair market value with a state or local 

government if the property will be used for another public purpose. See 41 C.F.R. § 102-

75.880(d). If state or local governments or other eligible nonprofits do not wish to acquire 

the property, GSA can dispose of property via a competitive sale to the public, generally 

through a sealed bid or auction. See 41 C.F.R. § 102-75.935.

29In addition, GSA may receive proceeds from land exchanges when the properties are 

not of equal value. For example, in exchange for the old courthouse in Rockford, Illinois, 

GSA received about $1.3 million in addition to land for the new courthouse because the 

old courthouse was valued higher than the land.

30Other public benefit uses include public heath, parks and recreation, wildlife 

conservation, public airport, port facility, self-help housing, law enforcement, emergency 

management response, and homeless assistance.

31We found one instance in which GSA received proceeds from a PBC—the conveyance 

of the old courthouse in Tuscaloosa, AL, to the local government for educational use, 

which resulted in proceeds of $392,000.
Page 19 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

We found that it took GSA an average of 525 days, or 1.4 years, to 

dispose of the old courthouses we reviewed. This excludes any time the 

buildings may have been vacant—sometimes years—before they were 

declared excess, the point at which GSA decides to dispose of them.32

GSA officials said that the disposal process can be lengthy because old 

courthouses often (1) have a high level of congressional and public 

interest that can generate competing inquiries regarding their future use; 

(2) are historic and, thus, subject to lengthy reviews; and (3) have 

specialized designs that make the buildings difficult to reuse for other 

purposes. We attempted to compare how long it took GSA to dispose of 

the old courthouses with the length of time it took to dispose of all types of 

properties from its nationwide portfolio of federally-owned buildings, but 

were unable to make such a comparison due to data reliability issues. 

GSA’s data on disposal times for all properties in its portfolio included 

“holds” when the disposal times were suspended to account for situations 

that GSA deemed to be out of its control, such as pending legislation, 

litigation, environmental concerns, and historic preservation reviews. To 

attempt to review comparable data, we asked GSA to provide information 

on the length of holds and the reasons for the holds that were placed on 

the disposal times for old courthouses in our review. However, the data

were incomplete, and in some cases, the explanations for the holds did 

not fall within the categories that GSA defined as being out of its control.

As noted above, we found that during the disposal process, buildings 

might remain vacant for extended periods of time and, thus, do not earn 

any revenue to help offset the costs to operate mechanical systems and 

perform maintenance to help prevent deterioration, for example:

• Hammond, Indiana: Disposal of the old courthouse took 2 years. 

According to GSA, after the judiciary vacated the old courthouse in 

2002, GSA and the City of Hammond conducted extensive 

discussions regarding the possibility of exchanging the building for 

city-owned land that could be used for parking space at the new 

courthouse. Those negotiations, however, were unsuccessful. After 

remaining vacant for 6 years, in 2006, GSA declared the property 

 32This is the length of time between GSA’s report of excess and the disposal (sale or 

public benefit conveyance). This average excludes courthouses disposed of using 

authorities such as 40 U.S.C. § 1304 relating to the transfer of obsolete buildings to 

States, also known as the “35 Act” for which, according to GSA, no report of excess is 

required.

GSA’s Process for 

Disposing of Old 

Courthouses Is Often 

Lengthy
Page 20 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

excess at which point the City of Hammond expressed interest in 

purchasing it through a negotiated sale. When the city subsequently 

decided it did not want the building, GSA decided against holding a 

public auction, given the minimal demand for property in the local 

market. In 2009, GSA sold the building through a negotiated sale to 

the First Baptist Church of Hammond, which owned a complex of 

buildings near the old courthouse, for $550,000.33

• Kansas City, Missouri: Disposal of the old courthouse took 3 years. 

After the judiciary vacated the old courthouse in 1998, GSA initially 

tried to retain the building, which opened in 1939, because of its 

historical significance and location, but after studying alternative uses, 

found that it was impractical for the federal government to reinvest in 

the building. In 2003, GSA retained a private development company 

to explore and promote public uses of the building by local 

governments and institutions, but none demonstrated the ability to 

make full use of the old courthouse. As a result, after remaining 

vacant for 7 years, in 2005, GSA determined that the building was 

excess property and it was screened for PBC use. Subsequently, the 

City of Kansas City applied for a historic monument PBC and the 

building was conveyed to the city in 2008. According to GSA officials, 

the length of time between the report of excess by GSA and its 

conveyance to the city was partly caused by the complexity of the 

project’s financing.

Nearly half of the 25 disposed old courthouses were historic buildings and 

listed on the National Register of Historic Places. According to GSA, any 

actions, including disposal, of buildings that are listed or eligible for listing 

on the National Register of Historic places, as required by National 

Historic Preservation Act, may be very lengthy. Disposing of old 

courthouses also involves the screening of properties for potential use by 

organizations for the homeless. More specifically, under the McKinneyVento Homeless Assistance (McKinney-Vento) Act, as amended,34 HUD 

is to solicit information on a quarterly basis from federal landholding 

agencies regarding federal buildings that are excess property, surplus 

 33In general, under the Property Act, specified types of negotiated sales must be 

accompanied by an explanatory statement to the appropriate committees of Congress in 

advance of the disposal. According to GSA, this nonpublic negotiated sale was reviewed 

by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform without objection.

34Pub. L. No. 100-77, 101 Stat. 482 (1987). The Stewart B. McKinney Homeless 

Assistance Act, enacted in 1987, was renamed the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance 

Act in October 2000 by Pub. L. No. 106-400, 114 Stat. 1675 (2000).
Page 21 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

property, or that are described as unutilized or underutilized in surveys by 

the heads of landholding agencies. HUD is then to identify and publish in 

the Federal Register those buildings that are suitable for use to assist the 

homeless. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is then to 

evaluate applications by representatives of the homeless for the use of 

such properties. In general, upon an approved application, such property 

is to be disposed of with priority consideration of surplus property given to 

potential uses to assist the homeless. Although excess real property, 

including old courthouses, must be reported to and evaluated by HUD for 

suitability for homeless use, we found no instances in which old 

courthouses were conveyed for this purpose.

We found only one case, in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, in which a homeless 

services provider’s application to use the old courthouse was approved, 

but the organization subsequently withdrew its application after 

determining that the expense of renovating, maintaining, and operating 

the building would have been too costly. The old courthouse in Coeur 

d’Alene was eventually conveyed to the county government under a 

historic monument PBC and is now used as a juvenile justice facility. In 

1997 and 2000, GSA disposed of two old courthouses (St. Louis and Ft. 

Myers) using an authority known as the “35 Act.”35 The agency interpreted 

the “35 Act” as not being subject to the surveying and reporting 

requirements of the Property Act and, in turn, the homeless-assistance 

screening process established by the McKinney-Vento Act because 

according to the GSA, the “35 Act” did not require GSA to declare a 

property as excess or surplus. As a result, GSA allowed the properties to 

be sold to local governments without reporting such property to HUD and 

did not undergo the homeless-assistance screening process.36 However, 

an April 2000 federal district court opinion regarding the potential sale of a 

Lafayette, Louisiana, courthouse under this authority rejected GSA’s 

interpretation of the law, ruling that property transferrable under the “35 

 35In general, this authority, initially enacted into law in 1935 (Pub. L. No. 74-330, 49 Stat. 

800 (1935) now codified at 40 U.S.C. § 1304, provides that GSA may sell a federal 

building site under GSA’s control that has been replaced by a new structure and the GSA 

determines is no longer needed by the federal Government.

36Pursuant to the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development is to review the property to determine if it is suitable for homeless 

use. In general, if the property is deemed suitable for homeless use, it is first to be made 

available for homeless use consideration at up to a 100 percent discount of fair market 

value by state or local governments and certain tax-exempt nonprofit organization for 60 

days prior to any other public benefit uses.
Page 22 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

Act” is subject to the surveying and reporting requirements of the Property 

Act and the McKinney-Vento Act.37

In addition, we found that GSA’s decision to dispose of old courthouses 

may be subject to change. For example, in Reno, Nevada, GSA initially 

decided to dispose of the old courthouse, but later decided to retain it 

after the judiciary raised objections and GSA further studied its decision. 

According to GSA, the agency had decided to dispose of the old 

courthouse because of the high cost of reinforcing the building against 

potential earthquake damage, but subsequently determined that it was 

the least costly alternative for housing the U.S. bankruptcy court, which 

was already occupying space in the building and preferred to stay. 

Moreover, the agency determined that tenants could reasonably accept 

the seismic risk of occupying the building through 2022. Other 

alternatives that GSA considered for housing the U.S. bankruptcy court in 

Reno included constructing a new building or expanding the existing new 

courthouse, which would likely have required additional congressional 

appropriations.

Potential new owners of old courthouses face some challenges similar to 

those that GSA faced in re-using old courthouses. These challenges can 

affect the agency’s ability to dispose of the buildings. Representatives of 

the new owners of six old courthouses we reviewed told us that the

buildings were being used––or will be used––for an art center, hotel, 

bank, affordable housing, church administration, and office space. In 

adapting the old courthouses to their current uses, these representatives 

told us they faced various challenges, including securing financing, 

making renovations, and meeting historic preservation requirements. 

However, several representatives said they were interested in acquiring 

the old courthouses for reasons such as their locations, architectural 

 37Nat’l l Law Ctr. on Homelessness & Poverty v. United States Veterans Administration, 

98 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2000). While the government’s appeal of the federal district 

court decision was pending, a settlement was reached under which, among other things, 

the transfer of the Lafayette, LA, courthouse would proceed without the property being 

reported as excess or surplus, unutilized or underutilized. See, Stipulation and Order, Nat’l 

l Law Ctr. on Homelessness & Poverty v. United States Veterans Administration, No. 88-

2503-RCL (D.C. Cir. Jan. 16, 2001).The old courthouse in Jacksonville, FL, which was 

transferred under the “35 Act” authority in June 2003 did undergo the homeless 

assistance screening process as required by the McKinney-Vento Act. See, 66 Fed. Reg. 

57728 (Nov. 16, 2001).

New Owners of Disposed 

Old Courthouses Are ReUsing the Buildings for a 

Variety of Purposes
Page 23 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

style, the quality of the construction materials, historic significance, and 

because they were able to purchase them at prices that were lower than 

the cost of constructing new buildings. In addition, two representatives 

said that historic preservation tax credits are sometimes an important 

incentive in redeveloping historic buildings that the government is 

disposing of. For example, the developer’s representative for the old 

courthouse in Tampa, which is being converted into a hotel, said his 

company specifically became interested in the building because it 

qualified for federal historic-preservation tax credits. Those tax credits 

authorize a 20 percent credit in any taxable year on qualified rehabilitation 

expenses with respect to certified historic structures. Below are examples 

of old courthouses converted for alternate uses. (Additional examples are

provided in Appendix III.)

• Former U.S. Courthouse, Kansas City, Missouri, now the Courthouse 

Lofts

The former U.S. Courthouse in Kansas City, Missouri, built in 1940, is 

now an apartment building (see fig.5). In 2008, after finding no other 

tenants or uses for the building, GSA conveyed it by PBC to a Kansas 

City redevelopment agency. The city worked with a developer to 

convert the old courthouse into an affordable-housing development 

that opened in 2011. An official from the city agency that acquired the 

old courthouse said the building’s conversion to affordable housing 

was part of downtown revitalization efforts. A representative of the 

building’s developer told us that the building has 176 loft-style 

apartments and offices of a law firm. The representative added that 

because the retained former courtrooms are not frequently used, the 

company is exploring having them used as a law library or as a venue 

for mock trials.
Page 24 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

Figure 5: Old Courthouse in Kansas City, Missouri, Converted into Affordable Housing

• Former George W. Whitehurst Federal Building in Ft. Myers, Florida, 

now the Sidney & Berne Davis Art Center

The former George W. Whitehurst Federal Building in Ft. Myers, 

Florida, built in 1933, is now used as an art center and event space. In 

2000, GSA sold the building to the City of Ft. Myers for $215,000 (see 

fig. 6). In 2003, after soliciting proposals to use the building, the city

leased it to Florida Arts, Incorporated and is now known as the Sidney 

& Berne Davis Art Center. According to an art center representative, 

the building is now used for events such as musical, dance, and 

theatrical performances. The representative added that the two former 

courtrooms were not historic and were not retained.
Page 25 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

Figure 6: Old Courthouse in Ft. Myers, Florida, Converted into an Art Center

While old courthouses are often retained to meet federal space needs, 

potential renovations key to re-using old courthouses are often not 

included in GSA’s proposals to Congress for new courthouses.38 GSA is 

not specifically required by statute to include plans for old courthouses in 

its proposals to Congress for new buildings. According to GSA officials, it 

can be challenging to include these plans because new courthouses often 

take many years to complete and reliable cost estimates for renovations 

are not always available when they are proposed. However, GSA’s 

proposals are required under statute to include, among other things, a 

“comprehensive plan” to, in general, provide space for all federal 

employees in the locality of a proposed new building “having due regard” 

for suitable space that may continue to be available in nearby existing 

 38Under 40 U.S.C. § 3307, before Congress makes an appropriation for a proposed 

project, GSA is to submit a prospectus of the proposed project to the Senate Committee 

on Environment and Public Works and the House Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure, for authorization by these committees when the proposed construction, 

alteration, or acquisition of a building to be used as a public building exceeds a specified 

dollar threshold. Funding for new courthouses we reviewed was also requested through 

project descriptions known as Fact Sheets and Reports of Building Survey. For the 

purposes of our report, these documents are also referred to as new courthouse 

proposals.

New Courthouse 

Proposals Did Not 

Consistently Address 

the Need for Old 

Courthouse 

Renovations
Page 26 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

government buildings.39 In addition, OMB and we have previously 

reported that complete cost estimates are a best practice in capital 

planning,40 Moreover, while old courthouse plans may not be available 

when a new courthouse is initially proposed, GSA periodically updates 

Congress after the initial proposal to obtain additional authorizations. 

Since fiscal year 1993, Congress has appropriated a total of more than 

$760 million41 for courthouse renovations and with 12 new courthouses 

planned to replace or supplement existing courthouses, more funding 

requests for renovations will likely be forthcoming.42

GSA officials told us that renovations are often necessary to effectively 

reuse old courthouses and that several old courthouses were 

underutilized because they need renovating. We found that new 

courthouse proposals often included plans for the old courthouses, but

few discussed whether renovations were needed to realize these plans. 

For 33 of the 40 old courthouses retained by GSA, the new courthouse 

proposals specified that the old courthouses would be reused for federal 

 39A prospectus under 40 U.S.C. § 3307 is to include, among other things, a 

comprehensive plan for providing space for all government officers and employees in the 

locality of the proposed facility or the space to be leased, having due regard for suitable 

space which may continue to be available in existing government-owned or occupied 

buildings, especially those buildings that enhance the architectural, historical, social, 

cultural, and economic environment of the locality. 

40Office of Management and Budget, Office of Management and Budget, Capital 

Programming Guide: Supplement to Office of Management and Budget Circular A-11, 

Planning, Budgeting, and Acquisition of Capital Assets (Washington, D.C.: July 2012) and 

GAO, Executive Guide: Leading Practices in Capital Decision-Making, GAO/AIMD-99-32

(Washington, D.C.: December 1998).

41This is an approximate number, based on Repairs and Alterations appropriations 

account items specifically associated with old courthouses covered in our review that does 

not reflect rescissions, transfers, reprogrammings, carry-over balances, supplemental 

appropriations, or amounts that may have been allocated for such renovations from lump 

sum appropriations.

42We have previously reported on new courthouses that would replace 12 existing 

courthouses. See, GAO, Federal Courthouses: Recommended Construction Projects 

Should Be Evaluated under New Capital-Planning Process, GAO-13-263 (Washington, 

D.C.: Apr. 11, 2013).
Page 27 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

tenants.43 However, only 15 of the 40 of new courthouse proposals 

addressed whether renovations were needed in the old courthouse and 

only 11 included estimates of the renovation costs. Nearly all of the 

proposals44 that included a renovation cost were annexes to the old 

courthouses and, in such cases, costs related to courthouse renovation 

are often included in the cost of constructing the annex because GSA 

cannot separate out the costs.45

Among the retained old courthouses that we visited, seven required 

renovations to be reused; three still require renovations; and one neither 

had nor requires renovations.46 For seven of those we visited, the new 

courthouse proposal included no discussion of the need to renovate the 

existing courthouse. Moreover, for eight, the new courthouse proposal did 

not include discussion of federal tenants in commercially leased space 

near the old courthouses, and none included discussion of the long-term 

costs associated with federal tenants staying in commercially-leased 

space versus occupying space in the old courthouses. In contrast, we 

found that most of the 40 new courthouse proposals we reviewed 

included discussion of the 30-year costs associated with using 

commercially-leased space versus building a new courthouse. We have 

previously reported that leasing commercial space is often more costly 

than using government-owned space.47 Examples of old courthouses we 

 43Among the new courthouse proposals for the 40 existing courthouses retained by GSA, 

33 specified a government tenant or tenants to reuse the existing courthouse; 3 specified 

that GSA would conduct a study at a later date to determine what to do with the old 

courthouse; 2 laid out alternatives for congressional consideration that included reused by 

government tenants or disposal (according to GSA these proposals were in a format that 

the agency stopped using the mid-1990s); and 2 did not specify any plan for the old 

courthouse. 

44The one proposal that included renovation costs and was not an annex was a type of 

proposal that laid out alternatives for congressional consideration that GSA officials told us 

the agency stopped using the in 1990s.

45GAO, Federal Courthouse Construction: Better Planning, Oversight, and Courtroom 

Sharing Needed to Address Future Costs, GAO-10-417 (Washington, D.C.: June 21, 

2010).

46One of the three that requires renovation, the old courthouse in Reno, Nevada, already 

has some renovations completed. All renovations required and still required reached or 

exceed the current prospectus threshold of $2.79 million 

47GAO, Federal Real Property: Strategy Needed to Address Agencies’ Long-standing 

Reliance on Costly Leasing, GAO-08-197 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 24, 2008).
Page 28 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

visited for which the new courthouse proposal did not include discussions 

of renovations or federal tenants in nearby commercially-leased space 

include:

• Portland, Oregon: About 21 percent of the old courthouse 

(approximately 33,000 square feet) was vacant as of May 2013, 

including three courtrooms.48 (See fig. 7.) The new courthouse 

proposal specified that the U.S. bankruptcy court would move into the 

old courthouse. However, according to judiciary and GSA officials, this 

plan was contingent on renovation needs and costs, which we found 

were not included in the new courthouse proposal. These renovations 

have not been completed and the bankruptcy court instead leases 

space in a commercial building at an annual cost of about $1.3 million.

Figure 7: Vacant Space in the Portland, Oregon, Old Courthouse, 2013

 48According to GSA officials, the annual cost of leasing these courtrooms would be about 

$141,000. Since 2011, GSA has leased the spaces temporarily for events and backdrops

for films, generating about $12,000. 
Page 29 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

• Richmond, Virginia: About 15 percent of the old courthouse 

(approximately 26,000 square feet) was vacant as of May 2013. 

Although the new courthouse proposal specified that the existing 

courthouse would be used by the U.S. court of appeals, it did not 

specify that renovations would be needed to fully realize this plan. As 

a result, although the U.S. district court re-located from the building in 

2008, a U.S. court of appeals office has remained in commerciallyleased space in the city at an annual cost of about $362,000. In 2013, 

GSA requested $3.9 million to renovate the vacant space so that it 

can be reused by the U.S. court of appeals.

• Orlando, Florida: The new courthouse opened in 2007, but the old 

courthouse remained mostly vacant for several years until renovations 

not specified in the new courthouse proposal were completed. 

Specifically, according to GSA, about 85 percent of the old courthouse 

remained vacant until a $48 million renovation project was completed 

with funding provided under the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009.49 As of May 2013, the vacancy rate fell to 

about 23 percent (approximately 45,500 square feet). Judiciary 

officials noted that when new courthouse space is constructed as an 

annex, such as in Orlando, the old courthouse must be retained for 

use by the judiciary either in full or in part. The Orlando case 

illustrates the importance of planning for the old courthouse when the 

new courthouse will be an annex to the old building.

In addition to the courthouses that we visited, we also found that other old 

courthouses were wholly or mostly vacant due to needed renovations not 

included in the new courthouse proposals. In Miami, the new courthouse 

proposal specified that the U.S. bankruptcy court and other tenants would 

move into the old courthouse. (See fig. 8.) However, according to GSA, 

renovation needs totaling about $60 million prevent this plan from 

proceeding, and, as a result, the building remains vacant. GSA indicated 

that more than $10 million would be required to separate the old 

courthouse in our review (David W. Dyer Federal Building and U.S. 

Courthouse) from another old courthouse built in 1983 (C. Clyde Atkins 

U.S. Courthouse), which share building systems, a common courtyard, 

and underground parking facility.

 49Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115.
Page 30 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

Figure 8: The Center Courtroom Entrance and Interior in the Dyer U.S. Courthouse, Miami, Florida

In Buffalo, the new courthouse proposal specified that the U.S. 

bankruptcy court and other government tenants would relocate to the old 

courthouse. However, while tenants relocated from the old courthouse in 

2011, it remains vacant pending $25 million in renovations that were not 

included in the new courthouse proposal. According to GSA, numerous 

federal tenants remained in commercially leased space in Buffalo, 

including the U.S. bankruptcy court, at an annual cost of about $360,000.

In Columbia, South Carolina, about 73 percent of the old courthouse was 

vacant as of May 2013, including large areas designed for court use, 

which, according to GSA, would cost about $38 million to renovate for 

other uses. The new courthouse proposal specified that the U.S. 

bankruptcy court would move into the old courthouse, yet the bankruptcy 

court instead occupies another old federal courthouse, leaving GSA with 

court-configured space in the old courthouse that the agency has had 

difficulty re-using.

Given the government’s multibillion-dollar investment in new courthouses 

and the challenges inherent to re-using or disposing of old courthouses, 

comprehensive planning regarding both the new and old courthouses is 

critical to ensure that federal operations are housed in the most costeffective manner. We believe that comprehensive planning includes 

Conclusions
Page 31 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

identifying challenges associated with re-using or disposing of the old 

courthouses, including renovation needs and estimated costs when the 

buildings are expected to be reused. By not consistently including the 

need for renovation and estimates of renovation costs in its new 

courthouse proposals, GSA is not providing Congress and other 

stakeholders with key information needed to make informed decisions 

about new courthouse projects. Although there may be challenges to 

providing accurate costs for future renovations to the old courthouses, 

estimates of these costs and, as necessary, periodic updates of changes 

in these costs would provide greater transparency to congressional 

decision makers regarding the full costs of courthouse projects. Further, 

although neither federal statute nor GSA specifically requires proposals 

for courthouses to include plans for old courthouses, federal statute does 

require GSA’s proposals to include a comprehensive plan considering 

space that may continue to be available in nearby existing government 

buildings. To the extent that the agency’s plans for housing federal 

tenants include using both the old and new courthouses, we believe such 

related renovation plans should be viewed as an integral part of the 

comprehensive plan. Moreover, when the plans involve re-locating federal 

tenants from commercially-leased space to the old courthouses, a 

comprehensive plan would include estimates regarding long-term costs 

versus continuing to use commercially-leased space.

To improve the transparency of cost information regarding the retention 

and reuse of old courthouses, we recommend that when proposing new 

courthouses, the Administrator of the General Services Administration, in 

consultation with the judiciary as appropriate, include

• plans for re-using or disposing of the old courthouses;

• challenges with implementing those plans, including any required 

renovations and related cost estimates, to be updated as needed; and

• when the plans involve re-locating federal tenants from commerciallyleased space to the old courthouses, estimates of the long-term costs 

of occupying the old courthouses versus continuing to occupy 

commercially leased space.

We provided copies of a draft of this report to GSA and AOUSC for 

review and comment. GSA concurred with the recommendation and 

AOUSC agreed that GSA and the judiciary should continue to work 

together to address the judiciary’s housing needs, but indicated that it is 

important not to delay the authorization and funding of new projects. 

Recommendation

Agency Comments 
Page 32 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

GSA’s letter can be found in Appendix IV. AOUSC’s letter can be found in 

Appendix V.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the 

Administrator of GSA and the Director of the AOUSC. In addition, the 

report is available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-2834 or GoldsteinM@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to 

this report are listed in appendix VI.

Mark L. Goldstein

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 33 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

Our objectives were (1) how the government is re-using old courthouses 

that were retained and the challenges involved; (2) how GSA disposed of 

old courthouses, the process involved, and the results; and (3) the extent 

to which GSA’s proposals for new courthouses considered the future use 

of the old courthouses.

To determine how the government is re-using old courthouses that were 

retained and the challenges involved, we collected and analyzed GSA 

data on the 66 old courthouses that were replaced or supplemented by 

new courthouses from 1993 to 2012. With regard to old courthouses that 

GSA retained, we reviewed GSA data on the buildings’ current uses, 

tenants, financial performance, and vacancy rates. For comparison 

purposes, we analyzed GSA data on the percentage of old courthouses 

that the agency categorized as “nonperforming” with the percentage in 

the agency’s national real estate portfolio during 2012.1

To determine how GSA disposed of old courthouses, the process 

involved, and the results, we reviewed the authorities that GSA used to 

dispose of the buildings, data on the length of time it took to dispose of 

them, the proceeds, and interviewed representatives of the new owners 

of selected disposed old courthouses. We attempted to compare how 

long it took for GSA, on average, to dispose of the old courthouses in our 

review with how long GSA took to dispose of all types of properties from 

its nationwide portfolio of federally-owned buildings, but were unable to 

make such a comparison due to data reliability issues. GSA’s data on 

disposal times for all properties in its portfolio included “holds” when the 

disposal times were suspended to account for situations that it deemed to 

be out of its control, such as pending legislation, litigation, environmental 

concerns, and historic preservation reviews. To attempt to review 

comparable data, we asked GSA to provide information on the length of 

holds and the reasons for the holds that were placed on the disposal 

times for old courthouses in our review. However, the data were 

incomplete, and in some cases, the explanations for the holds did not fall 

within the categories that GSA defined as being out of its control. We also 

reviewed other GSA data for completeness and determined that they 

were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. To verify the data, 

 1

GSA annually categorizes its owned buildings as “performing,” “underperforming,” or 

“nonperforming” based upon analysis of the financial performance and physical condition 

of individual assets. Buildings in GSA’s disposal process are included in this analysis 

because these buildings still require allocation of agency resources.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 34 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

we obtained information from GSA about how the data were collected, 

reviewed our prior evaluation of similar GSA data,2 and corroborated 

certain data with current and previous owners of old courthouses and 

through our research.

We also interviewed GSA officials about the factors they considered when 

deciding whether to reuse or dispose of old courthouses and the 

challenges involved, and reviewed building retention and disposal studies 

and applicable laws, regulations, and agency policies. In order to provide 

greater insight on reuses and disposals of old courthouses, we focused 

on 17 old courthouses as case studies, including 13 that we visited 

(Boston, MA; Camden, NJ; Eugene, OR; Ft. Myers; FL; Orlando, FL; 

Portland, OR; Reno, NV; Richmond, VA; Sacramento, CA; Springfield, 

MA; Tallahassee, FL; Tampa, FL; and Trenton, NJ) and 4 about which we 

interviewed GSA officials by phone (Coeur d’Alene, ID; Greeneville, TN; 

Hammond, IN; and Kansas City, MO). For all of our case studies, we 

reviewed GSA data and other documents and interviewed GSA officials. 

In 10 locations, we also interviewed judges and judiciary officials about 

their use of the old courthouses or disposal of those buildings. We 

selected the 17 old courthouses that represented a mix of retained and 

disposed buildings located in geographically diverse areas.

We interviewed GSA officials about the old courthouse in Coeur d’Alene, 

Idaho, because, among the 66 old courthouses in our review, it was the 

only instance in which a homeless services provider’s application to use 

the old courthouse was approved.3 We interviewed representatives of 

new owners of six old courthouses that were converted for alternate uses 

(Ft. Myers, FL; Greeneville, TN; Hammond, IN; Kansas City, MO; 

Springfield, MA; and Tampa, FL) about challenges involved in the 

disposal process and buildings’ reuse. In three locations (Ft. Myers, FL; 

Springfield, MA; and Tampa, FL) we also visited the former courthouses. 

Because this is a nonprobability sample, observations made based on our 

review of the 17 case studies do not support generalizations about other 

old courthouses. Rather, the observations provided specific, detailed 

examples of selected old courthouse reuses.

 2

GAO, Federal Buildings Fund: Improved Transparency and Long-term Plan Needed to 

Clarify Capital Funding Priorities, GAO-12-646 (Washington, D.C.: July 12, 2012).

3

As discussed earlier, the homeless services provider ultimately decided not to take 

possession of the property.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 35 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

To determine the extent to which GSA’s proposals for new courthouses 

built from 1993 through 2012 considered the future use of the old 

courthouses, we reviewed the proposals submitted to Congress for new 

courthouses in locations where the old courthouses were retained and 

appropriations made for renovating those old courthouses. We also 

reviewed pertinent laws, GSA regulations and policies on courthouse 

construction planning and space utilization, and prior GAO reports on 

courthouse construction4 and the cost of federal tenants’ use of leased 

versus federally-owned space.5 In addition, we interviewed GSA about 

new courthouse proposals and renovations needed to reuse old 

courthouse space.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2012 through 

September 2013 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We 

believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 4

GAO-13-263, GAO-13-461T, GAO-10-417, GAO-05-673.

5

GAO-08-197.
Appendix II: Status of Old U.S. Courthouses 

since 1993

Page 36 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

Appendix II: Status of Old U.S. Courthouses 

since 1993

City

(state)

Old courthousea

(year built) Status

Disposal method

(year disposed) Proceeds ($)

Major federal tenantb

or current use 

(new name) 

Montgomery (AL) Frank M. Johnson Jr. Federal

Building and U.S. Courthouse

(1933)

Retainedc Judiciary

Tuscaloosa

(AL)

Federal Building and U.S. 

Courthouse (1968)

Disposed PBC

(2012)

392,000 County school 

administration (Central 

Office for the 

Tuscaloosa County 

School System)

Little Rock

(AR)

Richard Sheppard Arnold U.S. 

Post Office and Courthouse

(1932)

Retainedc Judiciary

Phoenix

(AZ)

Phoenix Federal Building and 

U.S. Courthouse

(1962)

Retained Judiciary

Tucson

(AZ)

James A. Walsh Courthouse

(1930)

Retained Judiciary

Fresno

(CA)

B.F. Sisk U.S. Courthouse

(1968)

Disposed PBC

(2007)

0 State courthouse (B.F. 

Sisk Courthouse)

Sacramento

(CA)

John E. Moss Federal Building

(1961)

Retained U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security

San Diego

(CA)

Edward J. Schwartz Federal 

Building and U.S. Courthouse

(1976)

Retainedc Judiciary

Santa Ana

(CA)

Santa Ana Federal Building

(1975)

Retained U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security

Denver

(CO)

Byron Rogers Federal 

Building and U.S. Courthouse

(1965)

Retained (Mostly vacant due to 

major renovations)d

Washington

(DC)

Elijah Barrett Prettyman U.S. 

Courthouse

(1952)

Retainedc Judiciary

Ft. Myers

(FL)

George W. Whitehurst Federal 

Building

(1933)

Disposed Sale

(2000)

215,000 Art center (Sidney & 

Berne Davis Art 

Center)

Jacksonville

(FL)

U.S. Post Office and 

Courthouse

(1933)

Disposed Sale

(2002)

0 Planned offices for 

state’s attorneys 
Appendix II: Status of Old U.S. Courthouses 

since 1993

Page 37 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

Miami

(FL)

David W. Dyer Federal 

Building and U.S. Courthouse 

(1933)

Retained Vacant

Orlando

(FL)

George C. Young Federal 

Building and Courthouse

(1975)

Retainedc U.S. Department of 

Justice

Tallahassee

(FL)

U.S. Courthouse (1937) Retainedc Judiciary

Tampa

(FL)

U.S. Tampa Classic 

Courthouse

(1905)

Disposed PBC

(2003)

0 Planned hotel

Albany

(GA)

U.S. Post Office-Courthouse

(1912)

Disposed Sale

(2002)

350,000 Commercial office 

space

Cedar Rapids

(IA)

U.S. Courthouse

(1933)

Disposed Property exchange

(2010)

0 City government (City 

Hall)

Coeur D’Alene

(ID)

Federal Building and 

Courthouse

(1928)

Disposed PBC

(2009)

0 County courts (Juvenile 

Justice Building)

London

(KY)

Federal Building and U.S. 

Courthouse

(1910)

Retainedc Judiciary

Rockford

(IL)

U.S. Courthouse (1977) Disposed Property exchange

(2010)

1,280,840 County courts 

(Winnebago County 

Juvenile Justice 

Center)

Urbana

(IL)

Federal Building and US 

Courthouse (1904)

Disposed PBC

(1991)

0 County cultural center 

(Springer Cultural 

Center)

Hammond

(IN)

Federal Building and U.S. 

Courthouse

(1906)

Disposed Sale

(2009)

550,000 Church administration 

(First Baptist Church of 

Hammond 

Administrative Office 

Building)

Kansas City

(KS)

Federal Building-Post OfficeCourthouse

(1959)

Disposed PBC

(1995)

0 County courts 

(Correctional and Court 

Services Building)

Baton Rouge

(LA)

Federal Building and U.S. 

Courthouse

(1933)

Retainedc Judiciary

Lafayette

(LA)

Lafayette Federal Building & 

Courthouse

(1960)

Disposed Sale

(2001)

800,000 Storage for city 

government

Boston

(MA)

John W. McCormack Post 

Office and U.S. Courthouse

(1933)

Retained U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency
Appendix II: Status of Old U.S. Courthouses 

since 1993

Page 38 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

Springfield

(MA)

Federal Office Building

(1982)

Disposed Sale

(2009)

2,500,000 Commercial office 

space

Minneapolis

(MN)

U.S. Courthouse

(1961)

Disposed Sale

(1999)

5,400,000 State courts (Family 

Justice Center)

Cape Girardeau

(MO)

Cape Girardeau Federal 

Building and Courthouse

(1967)

Disposed Sale

(2012)

375,015 Vacant

Kansas City

(MO)

U.S. Courthouse (1940) Disposed PBC

(2008)

0 Apartment building 

(Courthouse Lofts)

St. Louis

(MO)

U.S. Court and Customhouse 

(1935)

Disposed Sale

(1997)

2,200,000 State courts and city 

offices (Carnahan 

Courthouse)

Jackson

(MS)

James O. Eastland Federal 

Building – Courthouse

(1933)

Disposed Sale

(2011)

1,400,009 Planned mixed 

residential-retail space 

Billings

(MT)

James F. Battin Federal 

Building and U.S. Courthouse

(1965)

Disposed Sale

(2013)

3,275,000 Planned office space

Fargo

(ND)

Federal Building/Courthouse 

(1931)

Retainedc U.S. Department of 

Justice

Omaha

(NE)

Edward Zorinsky Federal 

Building (1960)

Retained U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers

Concord

(NH)

James C. Cleveland Federal 

Building (1966)

Retained U.S. Department of 

Justice

Camden

(NJ)

U.S. Post Office and 

Courthouse

(1932)

Retainedc Judiciary

Trenton

(NJ)

Clarkson S. Fisher U.S. 

Courthouse (1933)

Retainedc Judiciary

Albuquerque

(NM)

D. Chavez Federal Building

(1965)

Retained U.S. Department of the 

Interior

Las Cruces

(NM)

Runnels Federal Building

(1974)

Retained U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security

Las Vegas

(NV)

Foley Federal Building and 

U.S. Courthouse

(1967)

Retained Judiciary

Reno

(NV)

C. Clifton Young Federal 

Building and U.S. Courthouse 

(1965)

Retained Judiciary

Brooklyn

(NY)

Emmanuel Celler U.S. 

Courthouse

(1963)

Retainedc Judiciary
Appendix II: Status of Old U.S. Courthouses 

since 1993

Page 39 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

Buffalo

(NY)

Michael J. Dillon U.S. 

Courthouse

(1936)

Retained Vacant

New York

(NY)

Thurgood Marshall U.S. 

Courthouse

(1936)

Retained Judiciary

Cleveland

(OH)

Howard M. Metzenbaum U.S. 

Courthouse

(1910)

Retained Judiciary

Youngstown

(OH)

Thomas D. Lambros Federal 

Building and U.S. Courthouse

(1995)

Retained Judiciary

Eugene

(OR)

Eugene Federal Building

(1974)

Retained U.S. Department of 

Justice

Portland

(OR)

Gus J. Solomon Courthouse

(1933)

Retained U.S. Department of 

Agriculture

Erie

(PA)

Federal Building and 

Courthouse

(1938)

Retainedc Judiciary

Scranton

(PA)

William J. Nealon Federal 

Building and Courthouse

(1931)

Retainedc Judiciary

Columbia

(SC)

Strom Thurmond U.S. 

Courthouse

(1978)

Retained Judiciary

Greeneville

(TN)

Federal Building-U.S. 

Courthouse (1904)

Disposed Sale

(2002)

200,000 Commercial bank 

(Greeneville Federal 

Bank Main Office)

Austin

(TX)

U.S. Courthouse

(1935)

Retained Vacant

Brownsville

(TX)

Brownsville U.S. Post Office 

and Courthouse (1933)

Disposed Property Exchange 

(1996)

e City government (City 

Hall/Old Federal 

Courthouse)

Corpus Christi

(TX)

Corpus Christi Courthouse

(1918)

Disposed Sale

(2002)

552,956 Law offices

El Paso

(TX)

U.S. Courthouse

(1936)

Retained Judiciary

Laredo

(TX)

Post Office and U.S. 

Courthouse

(1906)

In disposal 

process

Alexandria

(VA)

Martin V.B. Bostetter 

Courthouse

(1931)

Retained Judiciary
Appendix II: Status of Old U.S. Courthouses 

since 1993

Page 40 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

Source: GAO analysis of GSA data and interviews with representatives of current building owners.

Note: Major tenants as of June 2013 GSA data.

a

For disposed buildings, name is that was used when it was a federal property.

b

Federal tenants that occupied the largest share of leased rentable square feet.

c

Location where the new courthouse was constructed as an annex to the old courthouse.

d

Most of the Byron Rogers Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse is closed for major renovations, 

contributing to a vacancy rate of 69 percent. Part of the building is open and occupied by the 

judiciary.

e

GSA did not have information on whether financial proceeds were received regarding the property 

exchange involving the old courthouse in Brownsville.

Richmond

(VA)

Lewis F. Powell Jr. U.S. 

Courthouse and Annex

(1858)

Retained Judiciary

Seattle

(WA)

William Kenzo Nakamura 

Courthouse

(1940)

Retained Judiciary

Beckley

(WV)

Beckley Federal Building

(1933)

Disposed PBC

(2001)

0 Regional education 

service agencies 

(RESA 1 Building)

Charleston

(WV)

Post Office and Courthouse 

(1961)

Disposed Sale

(1999)

2,000,000 Leased back to federal 

tenant

Wheeling

(WV)

Federal Building and U.S. 

Courthouse

(1907)

Retainedc Judiciary
Appendix III: Additional Examples of Old 

Courthouses Converted to Other Uses

Page 41 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

• Former Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, Hammond, Indiana, 

now the Administrative Office Building of the First Baptist Church of 

Hammond

The former Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in Hammond, 

Indiana, built in 1906, is now used by a church for office and meeting 

space (see fig. 9). In 2009, GSA sold the old courthouse to the First 

Baptist Church of Hammond for $550,000. According to a church 

representative, one of the building’s three former courtrooms is mainly 

used as a meeting room, but also for church services, weddings, and 

funerals, and that the other two former courtrooms have few or no 

remnants of their prior use.

Figure 9: Former Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, Hammond, Indiana, Converted for Church Use

• Former Federal Building-U.S. Courthouse, Greeneville, Tennessee, 

now the Greeneville Federal Bank Main Office

The former Federal Building-U.S. Courthouse in Greeneville, 

Tennessee, built in 1904, is now being used as a bank (see fig.10). In 

2002, GSA sold the old courthouse to the Greeneville Federal Bank 

for $200,000. According to a bank representative, of the building’s 

three former courtrooms, one is now used as an employee training 

room and the other two were reconfigured for lobby, teller, and 

conference room space. 

Appendix III: Additional Examples of Old 

Courthouses Converted to Other Uses
Appendix III: Additional Examples of Old 

Courthouses Converted to Other Uses

Page 42 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

Figure 10: Former Federal Building-Courthouse, Greeneville, Tennessee, Converted into a Bank

• Former U.S. Tampa Classic Courthouse, in Tampa, Florida, and 

Planned Le Meridien Hotel

The former U.S. Tampa Classic Courthouse in Tampa, Florida, built in 

1905, is being converted into a hotel (see fig. 11). In 2003, after 

finding no other tenants or uses for the building, GSA conveyed the 

old courthouse to the City of Tampa as a PBC. In 2012, the city 

leased the building to a developer that proposed to convert the 

building into a hotel. According to a representative from the developer, 

the hotel will have 130 rooms. The representative said that the 

building’s two historic former courtrooms will be used for a restaurant 

and ballroom/banquet facility. The hotel is expected to open in 2014. 
Appendix III: Additional Examples of Old 

Courthouses Converted to Other Uses

Page 43 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

Figure 11: Former U.S. Classic Courthouse, Tampa, Florida, to Become Hotel
Appendix IV: Comments from the General 

Services Administration

Page 44 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

Appendix IV: Comments from the General 

Services Administration
Appendix IV: Comments from the General 

Services Administration

Page 45 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses
Appendix V: Comments from the Federal 

Judiciary

Page 46 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

Appendix V: Comments from the Federal 

Judiciary
Appendix V: Comments from the Federal 

Judiciary

Page 47 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 48 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

Mark L. Goldstein, (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Keith Cunningham, Assistant 

Director; Lindsay Bach; Lorraine Ettaro; Geoffrey Hamilton; Bob Homan; 

and James Leonard made key contributions to this report.

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments
Related GAO Products

Page 49 GAO-14-48 Federal Courthouses

Federal Real Property: Excess and Underutilized Property Is an Ongoing 

Challenge. GAO-13-573T. Washington, D.C.: April 25, 2013.

Federal Courthouses: Recommended Construction Projects Should Be 

Evaluated under New Capital-Planning Process. GAO-13-263. 

Washington, D.C.: April 11, 2013.

Federal Courthouse Construction: Nationwide Space and Cost Overages 

Also Apply to Miami Project. GAO-13-461T. Washington, D.C.: March 8, 

2013.

Federal Real Property: Improved Data Needed to Strategically Manage 

Historic Buildings, Address Multiple Challenges. GAO-13-35. Washington, 

D.C.: December 11, 2012.

Federal Buildings Fund: Improved Transparency and Long-term Plan 

Needed to Clarify Capital Funding Priorities. GAO-12-646. Washington, 

D.C.: July 12, 2012.

Federal Real Property: National Strategy and Better Data Needed to 

Improve Management of Excess and Underutilized Property. 

GAO-12-645. Washington, D.C.: June 20, 2012.

Federal Courthouse Construction: Better Planning, Oversight, and 

Courtroom Sharing Needed to Address Future Costs. GAO-10-417. 

Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2010.

Federal Real Property: Authorities and Actions Regarding Enhanced Use 

Leases and Sale of Unneeded Real Property. GAO-09-283R. 

Washington, D.C.: February 17, 2009.

Federal Real Property: Strategy Needed to Address Agencies’ Longstanding Reliance on Costly Leasing. GAO-08-197. Washington, D.C.: 

Jan. 24, 2008.

Federal Courthouses: Rent Increases Due to New Space and Growing 

Energy and Security Costs Require Better Tracking and Management.

GAO-06-613. Washington, D.C.: June 20, 2006.

Courthouse Construction: Information on Project Cost and Size Changes 

Would Help to Enhance Oversight. GAO-05-673. Washington, D.C.: June 

30, 2005.

Related GAO Products

(543316)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.